Minutes - TRIPS Council Special Session - View details of the intervention/statement

Ambassador D. Mwape (Zambia)
Chinese Taipei
A.ii Second sub-question2
85. The representative of Chinese Taipei said that, as a co-sponsor of the joint proposal it had been pursuing a multilateral system that was within the mandate of the Doha Declaration and the TRIPS Agreement. As stated in previous sessions, her delegation firmly believed that the joint proposal was the most appropriate solution within the mandate because of its voluntary participation and a lesser degree of burden placed on the participating Members. 86. In response to sub question 2.a, she said that the examiner who rejected a trademark application was required to provide reasons and sufficient evidence, which meant that the examiner should bear the burden of proof. In terms of the level of substantiation currently required, the examiner must support his decision with clear and convincing evidence. In response to sub-question 2.b, a challenger of a registered trademark should bear the burden of proving his or her claims. A written document containing the grounds for the challenge and supporting evidence must be forwarded to the right holder of the trademark for consideration in defence and counter-evidence. Again, the grounds and evidence put forward in support of the challenge must be capable of proving the claims clearly and sufficiently.
The Special Session took note of the statements made.